What is our formation?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Bergen Blade said:
Identical to something I suggested the other day.

Keeper and back four picks itself. Will be good to have Baldock back.

We have to try Hamer in a central position at some stage. I think it's been a problem for him that he's had to do a lot of running off the ball from wideish starting positions, trying to get forward and then tracking back to help out defensively, often not appearing brilliant at either. Although there's been signs of his quality he's not got involved enough and always seem to tire in second halves. He's not really got the pace to take on and get past PL defenders, so we need to try something different, the role he did so well at Coventry, from a deeper starting position. There will be a bit less running around and chasing shadows, but we should expect him to have the energy to dictate and progress our play.

Souza should keep his place. I think a lot of people are not aware that his role in the team has varied quite a bit so far. We've tried different formation tweaks, he's played RCM and been asked to man mark (Arsenal in particular). There's been faults in his game, he's frustrated me a lot, but I think it's worth letting him have the role that he's best at, holding midfield, trying to be the shield in front of the centre halves, not man marking one specific bloke out on the side line.

Souza is not a marathon runner, but he's strong and can put in a tackle. I've seen some opposition players backing out of challenges against him. I think his defensive stats will improve if he's being asked to play a simpler game where he can win more second balls, get important tackles and blocks in. I will also add that his pass completion of 85% is the best in the squad (apart from a Archer who only make a handful of passes each game) and some of the subs. Norwood's is 73%, Hamer 71. Souza usually finds a teammate.

Regarding the choice of midfield wide men we should try to be realistic and pragmatic. Hamer has struggled to make an impact from those positions. McAtee has shown signs, but again he's been having to use a lot of energy helping full backs out. I don't see us outplaying teams at this level. Trying to carve through teams with patient, neat passing down the flanks is unlikely to give us a lot of goals.

So let's go for something different. Let's try two wing backs in wide midfield; Bogle and Larouci. Defensively they're not great full backs, but they ARE trained defenders and should be competitive and add aggression and energy. We've conceded a lot of goals from crosses, so having two sets of full back types may help preventing so many coming in! On the attack they've both contributed already with an assist and a goal. I'd hope Larouci's pace can be useful when we counter attack, and Bogle may be a goal threat when he gets into the box.

Slightly in front of the midfield I'd try McAtee. We should look for him as we counter and hopefully we'll see some driving runs up the pitch. Hopefully, in a number 10 role he'll be able to conserve some energy for those runs, and increase the chance of them giving telling results.

Archer or Brewster to alternate up front. Archer has more pace and is more composed in front of goal. Brewster may be a little stronger.

Main aim would be to be more competitive, harder to play against, maybe turn games into more like cup ties - hard to break down, but still capable of creating on the break. I'd be nervous at defensive set pieces, because the above is a small team.

I think Hecky will be tempted to try something like this, but worry that he will stick with Norwood and in an attempt to add solidity to midfield, rather than going for Bogle/Larouci will turn to the old favourites Osborn and Fleck in wide roles. They may do a job, but we'd lose counter attacking qualities, pace and goal threat.
Click to expand...
99.9% this. Yes sir.
 

brownblade said:
v Wolves.... Maybe?!

View attachment 173863
Click to expand...
Similar to what I'd go for but a few tweaks. Like this.

‐----------------Wes
Baldock Trusty Robbo Thomas
‐------------------Souza
------------Hamer Mcatee

------Bogle Brewster Archer

Souza as midfield enforcer break play up defensive mode only and soon as he wins the ball pass it on allowing Hamer and Mcatee to have shackles off going forward.

Attacking full backs Baldock and Thomas to get up and overlap bogle and Archer (to create space for those to cut in and run in behind), knowing we will always have robbon trusty and souza at the back to protect any counter attacks.

Brewster (or whoever ST is would be slightly closer to midfielder to try n link up, like an in-between false 9 and out n out 9)

Archer and Brewster can interchange on that side through the game.

- Subs. This allows us a few different options in Larouchi for baldock if hes tiring and move Archer over and push bogle back

- Norwood if needs be in for souza (if playing shit, allows Norwood to controll from deep, and stay as dm)

- Traore in RW spot if anyone is tiring

- One ? In striker spot if needs be towards end

- Slimane for hamer if tiring or mcatee?

- Dare I say Fleck for mcatee (if tiring, knowing he has more freedom with the dm, it may help find his form or not).
 
Bergen Blade said:
Identical to something I suggested the other day.

Keeper and back four picks itself. Will be good to have Baldock back.

We have to try Hamer in a central position at some stage. I think it's been a problem for him that he's had to do a lot of running off the ball from wideish starting positions, trying to get forward and then tracking back to help out defensively, often not appearing brilliant at either. Although there's been signs of his quality he's not got involved enough and always seem to tire in second halves. He's not really got the pace to take on and get past PL defenders, so we need to try something different, the role he did so well at Coventry, from a deeper starting position. There will be a bit less running around and chasing shadows, but we should expect him to have the energy to dictate and progress our play.

Souza should keep his place. I think a lot of people are not aware that his role in the team has varied quite a bit so far. We've tried different formation tweaks, he's played RCM and been asked to man mark (Arsenal in particular). There's been faults in his game, he's frustrated me a lot, but I think it's worth letting him have the role that he's best at, holding midfield, trying to be the shield in front of the centre halves, not man marking one specific bloke out on the side line.

Souza is not a marathon runner, but he's strong and can put in a tackle. I've seen some opposition players backing out of challenges against him. I think his defensive stats will improve if he's being asked to play a simpler game where he can win more second balls, get important tackles and blocks in. I will also add that his pass completion of 85% is the best in the squad (apart from a Archer who only make a handful of passes each game) and some of the subs. Norwood's is 73%, Hamer 71. Souza usually finds a teammate.

Regarding the choice of midfield wide men we should try to be realistic and pragmatic. Hamer has struggled to make an impact from those positions. McAtee has shown signs, but again he's been having to use a lot of energy helping full backs out. I don't see us outplaying teams at this level. Trying to carve through teams with patient, neat passing down the flanks is unlikely to give us a lot of goals.

So let's go for something different. Let's try two wing backs in wide midfield; Bogle and Larouci. Defensively they're not great full backs, but they ARE trained defenders and should be competitive and add aggression and energy. We've conceded a lot of goals from crosses, so having two sets of full back types may help preventing so many coming in! On the attack they've both contributed already with an assist and a goal. I'd hope Larouci's pace can be useful when we counter attack, and Bogle may be a goal threat when he gets into the box.

Slightly in front of the midfield I'd try McAtee. We should look for him as we counter and hopefully we'll see some driving runs up the pitch. Hopefully, in a number 10 role he'll be able to conserve some energy for those runs, and increase the chance of them giving telling results.

Archer or Brewster to alternate up front. Archer has more pace and is more composed in front of goal. Brewster may be a little stronger.

Main aim would be to be more competitive, harder to play against, maybe turn games into more like cup ties - hard to break down, but still capable of creating on the break. I'd be nervous at defensive set pieces, because the above is a small team.

I think Hecky will be tempted to try something like this, but worry that he will stick with Norwood and in an attempt to add solidity to midfield, rather than going for Bogle/Larouci will turn to the old favourites Osborn and Fleck in wide roles. They may do a job, but we'd lose counter attacking qualities, pace and goal threat.
Click to expand...
I’ve thought that accommodating Norwood has been a problem for a long time. It’s not that he’s a bad player, but playing to his strengths and covering for his weaknesses detracts from those around him.
 
Thanks Bergen.

Bergen Blade said:
Souza should keep his place. I think a lot of people are not aware that his role in the team has varied quite a bit so far. We've tried different formation tweaks, he's played RCM and been asked to man mark (Arsenal in particular). There's been faults in his game, he's frustrated me a lot, but I think it's worth letting him have the role that he's best at, holding midfield, trying to be the shield in front of the centre halves, not man marking one specific bloke out on the side line.

Souza is not a marathon runner, but he's strong and can put in a tackle. I've seen some opposition players backing out of challenges against him. I think his defensive stats will improve if he's being asked to play a simpler game where he can win more second balls, get important tackles and blocks in. I will also add that his pass completion of 85% is the best in the squad (apart from a Archer who only make a handful of passes each game) and some of the subs. Norwood's is 73%, Hamer 71. Souza usually finds a teammate.
Click to expand...
It's nice that someone else shares my views on Souza. He's in the Berge mould in a way; he's got the stamina but he's got a relatively low acceleration and large turning circle so he looks behind the play in the wider roles. Put him in the central berth as a blocker, breaking up play, recovering the ball, getting stuck in and we will see a very different player to the one who looks a little lost in the wider role he's been asked to perform.

I've highlighted one section of your post. Towards the end of the Arsenal game Declan Rice played a one two and made his way into our area. Souza stepped in, bounced Rice out of the way and recovered the ball. He's the only one of our midfielders who came close to Rice's physicality: earlier in the half someone else (Osborn, I think; possibly Hamer) was dismissed with a small nudge from the Arsenal man when they attempted to tackle him.

Heckingbottom has a track record of introducing players into the team slowly and then fitting them into the available position rather than playing them in their natural positions. I understand the theory but the evidence at the moment is that we are woefully short of the quality required to compete at the top level so why not try something different?

For what it's worth I agree with the formation you and brownblade have put together but I'd start Brewster. There was a notable drop in ball retention and competitiveness from the lone striker last Saturday when Archer replaced Brewster; for all his faults Brewster seems to have a far better understanding of the lone front man role in a defensive team. Oh, how we miss McBurnie.

Cheshire Cat said:
I’ve thought that accommodating Norwood has been a problem for a long time. It’s not that he’s a bad player, but playing to his strengths and covering for his weaknesses detracts from those around him.
Click to expand...

Saturday should be the end of the Norwood era. He was dreadful; one of the worst central midfield performances I can remember. That's not doubting his professionalism or approach, just a sad recognition that he's outmatched physically and technically.
 
Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou said:
When Anel is fit and we're going to play 4 at the back then we need to be solid.

Baldock - Anel - Trusty - Robinson
Click to expand...
Agree this is worth a try. We get very little telling attacking contributions from our full backs anyway. Robinson at left back would add physicality, aerial strength and determination. We'd have to see if would cope against nippy forwards running at him...
 
Bergen Blade said:
Agree this is worth a try. We get very little telling attacking contributions from our full backs anyway. Robinson at left back would add physicality, aerial strength and determination. We'd have to see if would cope against nippy forwards running at him...
Click to expand...
Robinson is good at managing the space behind him so he might be better than expected at full back. It's not very often he gets caught out unless he's the one who's lost the ball.
 
When we are in a 4 all of them are expected to defend, why not have Robinson at LB?
George on the right as well should be we are pretty good from crosses into our box again as well.
 
Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou said:
Glad it's working but what is it? 4 3 3 or 4 3 2 1? Hard to work out sometimes.
Click to expand...
I’m sure there are some subtleties in and out of possession but to me it seemed to be 4-3-3:

Wes
Bogle Anel Robbo Trusty
Hamer Souza Brooks
McAtee Osula Archer

Archer frequently getting into attacking positions and McAtee roaming a bit more to make it look like 4-3-1-2 at times.

It’s very easy for it to become 3-5-2 as well if needed, just needs Brooks to slide over slightly and McAtee to move a little more centrally.

Brooks could end up being a key player, mainly because he has the legs to cover ground quickly in either direction and he’s naturally left footed, so in that sense a Brooks sized opportunity has really opened up for him!
 
I like how we changed our formation mid match to see it out.

I’m happy to go with 5 against Chelsea or 4! The whole idea of no Plan B has seemingly gone in 180 minutes.
 
Thought we’ve lined up more as a 343 last 2 matches .. stick the same formation & high press .. with Robbo suspended hopefully Baldock to cover that ? ⚔️
 
John Street West Terrace said:
Thought we’ve lined up more as a 343 last 2 matches .. stick the same formation & high press .. with Robbo suspended hopefully Baldock to cover that ? ⚔️
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but how have you got to that?

It’s a variation of 433

Trusty is Left back.

Midfield 3 of Brooks / Hamer / Souza
 
It’s flexible. If fans ant all follow it, the opposition might struggle with it too?

In truth it will depend on player availability, home and away. Keep everyone guessing. No bad thing as long as the manager and our players get it.
 

We’ve been pretty fluid, to my eyes, in the middle and final thirds, shifting between 4-3-2-1, 4-3-3, and something more like a 4-5-1.

Brooks hasn’t consistently played on the left side of a midfield 3. For sustained passages of play he has been more central, with Archer deep alongside him and wide left.
 
It's definitely been a back 4, that much we do know.

The BBC (FWIW) had us as a 4-1-4-1 with Souza in front of the back 4 with a 4 of Archer, Hamer, Brooks and McAtee though the fluidity of it can easily transform that into a 4-3-3 or a 4-5-1 fairly easily if Archer and McAtee push forward or drop in alongside the others.
 
One of the criticisms I had of the death days of Wilder MkI was his tactical inflexibility. Everyone had a role and they had to perform that role irrespective of whether the game demanded something different. That was one of my main reservations about him coming back.

I have to say that on the evidence of the first two games in this spell (Wilder MkII) I've been taken aback by the difference. Our formation is hard to pin down because the midfield 3/5 are expected to revolve depending on what's going on. The only thing which has been constant is the defence with the usual split of right and left footed players.

The basic line up has been a 4-3-3:

Wes
Bogle - Ahmedhodzic - Robinson - Trusty
Hamer - Souza - Brooks
McAtee - Osula - Archer​

But there have been times when it's been a 4-2-3-1 (particularly 60-75 mins against Liverpool) with Souza pushed up to pressure the base of the opposition midfield

Wes
Bogle - Ahmedhodzic - Robinson - Trusty
Hamer - Brooks
McAtee - Souza - Archer
Osula​

Or a 4-1-2-2-1 with Souza pivoting back to shield in front of the back four

Wes
Bogle - Ahmedhodzic - Robinson - Trusty
Souza
Hamer - Brooks
McAtee - Archer
Osula​

And out of possession when we're pinned back it's definitely a 4-5-1

Wes
Bogle - Ahmedhodzic - Robinson - Trusty
McAtee - Hamer - Souza - Brooks - Archer
Osula​

And then against Brentford I have a feeling that we went to the traditional back three to see the game out - but with Slimane on and given clear instructions to get forward from midfield as much as possible; with more clinical finishing we could conceivably won that game 2-0 or even 3-0.

It's been a breath of fresh air, particularly when compared to Hecky's rigid 5-3-2 with three or four players out of their natural positions.
 
Last edited:
Oddly, I thought we started the game v Brentford in a standard 4-4-2

Wes
Bogle - Anel - JLT - Trusty
McAtee - Hamer - Souza - Brooks
Osula - Archer

However it was noticeable how it appeared to evolve throughout the game and we definitely went 4-5-1 when Osula went off and Slimane came on. There were certainly times when Brooks seemed to be playing a more central role. I suppose it probably has something to do with the way Brentford move the ball about the pitch, which Wilder has pointed out before, which meant that our players had to be more fluid in their off the ball movement. We looked far better with the ball, with players seemingly having more freedom to interchange, which I would imagine suits the likes of Hamer and McAtee who seemed to have more licence to roam more freely.

Regardless of what the plan was, it worked really well, which is a refreshing change after what we've seen.
 
Against Liverpool it looked like 4321/433 with Osula the furthest forward,more christmas tree shape,flanked by Mcatee on the right ,Archer on the left.
Midfield was Hamer RCM,Souza CM centre,Brooks LCM and a back 4 of Bogle,Anel,Robbie,Trusty.
Similar v Brentford but looked like Brooks often more advanced at times.
I think we finished playing 3 centre backs again when the subs were made in the 2nd half.
 
i think it will be 451 out of possesion and 433 when we have the ball which probably means 451 for the majority of the game at stamford bridge
 
The fact so many of our own fans have come up with about five different formations that they think we've played says that it's not rigidly the same and that can only be a good thing.
 
Millhousesblade1889 said:
I was always surprised by how unfit we looked with Hecky, I think his lack of game management was the issue. We'd have players running on empty for 15/20 mins and he wouldn't change anything.
Click to expand...

My view was the Hecky knew the players were struggling fitness wise (not Heckys fault but the preseason preparation seemed a shambles) and we also lacked quality from the bench, which is a massive factor these days with the new 5 subs allowed from 7 players rule.

So I thought a deliberate tactic for Hecky was to play in 1st and 2nd gear during the 1st half of games.
It was as though the plan was to hopefully go in 0-0 or (at worse) 1-0 down by half-time.
Then the players would still be quite fresh therefore able to raise their energy levels and go for it much more in the 2nd half.
The home game against Wolves was a prime example where this tactic worked really well.

It also seemed to me that the substitution tactics were all decided pre-game. Hecky knew which players were close to the red zone, so he'd already decided pre match they would come off on 70 minutes no matter what, was happening on the pitch.

Where as on Saturday at the beginning of the 2nd half Brentford were starting to build up some confidence with positivity.
So Wilder makes an early substation bringing on Slimane for Osula
and that substitution almost instantly swung the game back in our favour with Slimane looking surprisingly good/ talented.
Slimane must be feeling great, out in the cold all season, only plays 35 minutes at PL level and already looks up to the required standard.
 
Last edited:
Booker4 said:
The fact so many of our own fans have come up with about five different formations that they think we've played says that it's not rigidly the same and that can only be a good thing.
Click to expand...
I've seen more agreement on the Anel armband thread than on what our formation is supposed to be!
 
Sheffsteel said:
My view was the Hecky knew the players were struggling fitness wise (not Heckys fault but the preseason preparation seemed a shambles) and we also lacked quality from the bench, which is a massive factor these days with the new 5 subs allowed from 7 players rule.

So I thought a deliberate tactic for Hecky was to play in 1st and 2nd gear during the 1st half of games.
It was as though the plan was to hopefully go in 0-0 or (at worse) 1-0 down by half-time.
Then the players would still be quite fresh therefore able to raise their energy levels and go for it much more in the 2nd half.
The home game against Wolves was a prime example where this tactic worked really well.

It also seemed to me that the substitution tactics were all decided pre-game. Hecky knew which players were close to the red zone, so he'd already decided pre match they would come off on 70 minutes no matter what, was happening on the pitch.

Where as on Saturday at the beginning of the 2nd half Brentford were starting to build up some confidence with positivity.
So Wilder makes an early substation bringing on Slimane for Osula
and that substitution almost instantly swung the game back in our favour with Slimane looking surprisingly good/ talented.
Slimane must be feeling great, out in the cold all season, only plays 35 minutes at PL level and already looks up to the required standard.
Click to expand...
Risky tactic from Hecky when you've not got the quality to win games in the second half and in most cases we were 1/2-0 down and the game was gone. It worked once vs Wolves as you said but the rest of the time we were terrible. We were incredibly fortunate to beat Wolves too when we all know the pen was dubious.

Even in the Everton game, I remember thinking how inferior we looked but they've ended up proving they're a mid-table team so in hindsight it wasn't a bad result!
 
Formations describe how a team lines up when defending from open play. Certain situations may see the team break out of this general shape, which means it can be difficult to tell what the formation is. For example, when a team is pressing high as the opposition tries to go short from a goal kick. If the team is unsuccessful in winning the ball in said situation, they may seek to reorganising and getting back to the shape we call the formation.

Never mind the shape in which they attack! In modern football there are so many variations in players' roles and movement that a formation is not really fit to describe the team's shape. Full backs often find themselves in more advanced positions than a (holding) midfielder, for example.

So let's see how we lined up in open play; when we did not press high, but dropped deeper as we were looking to defend against Brentford's attack.

4-3-3 (but I fully understand some wanting to call it 4-5-1 or 4-1-4-1 or 4-1-2-2-1...)

Back four.

Midfield, Souza central and most defensively minded. Hamer RCM, Brooks LCM.

Osula central striker. Archer and McAtee wide men, making it a midfield 5 when we were pushed back.


Roles when attacking:

Souza holding. Hamer bit more involved in deep playmaking (17 passes in own half), but also getting forward. Brooks less involved in passing in our half (6), but given licence to take up more advanced positions and bomb forward on the ball more; on occasions popping up in a number 10 position, in front of Hamer and Souza.

Archer and McAtee, cutting inside, supporting Osula, lots of running on the ball.

1702415189173.png
 

Wilder and knill ended up with the classic overlapping cbs because we started it in league one where sides would fear us. That's not happening in the premier league obviously so it stands to reason as they attempt to find a successful formation it isn't necessarily going to be that first. If I recall he never used 5 st the back before joining us. It's just it was so successful that he became identified with it but even then it's not like we didn't change and bring on a striker for a defender
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom